Regina v Raymond Bruce REID [2001] NSWSC 1084

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Regina v Raymond Bruce REID [2001] NSWSC 1084 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70086/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 12/11/01, 13/11/01, 14/11/01, 15/11/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 November 2001

PARTIES : Regina Raymond Bruce REID JUDGMENT OF : Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : Howard Hamilton (Crown) Mark Smith (Accused) SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor Legal Aid Commission of NSW - T A Murphy CATCHWORDS : Sentence Criminal Appeal Act 1912 LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 CASES CITED : Regina v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 DECISION : Three years and three months imprisonment; Sentence deemed to have commenced on 29 April 2000; Non-parole period of twenty-one months; First date eligible for consideration for release on parole is 28 January 2002

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

BELL J

FRIDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2001 70086/01 - RAYMOND BRUCE REID SENTENCE

1. HER HONOUR: Raymond Bruce Reid was arraigned before me on 14 November 2001 on an indictment charging him in count one with the murder of Michael William Jones at Wagga Wagga on 29 April 2000. Count two charged the prisoner in the alternative with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Michael William Jones. The prisoner entered a plea of not guilty to count one and a plea of guilty to count two. The Crown accepted his plea of guilty to the lesser charge in full discharge of the indictment. 2. The offence of which the prisoner stands convicted is provided by section 35 (b) of the Crimes Act 1900 . It carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. 3. The facts upon which I proceed for the purpose of sentence are as follows. The prisoner and his cousin Kevin John Jones were, as at 29 April 2000, living in a squat frequented by homeless men in Wagga Wagga. The prisoner was alcoholic. Michael Jones was a resident of the Edel Quinn Shelter for homeless persons, which was located close to the squat. He too was alcoholic. He appears to have been on friendly terms with the prisoner. The prisoner was drinking with Kevin Jones and a man named Jack during the course of the morning of 29 April 2000. He came to learn of some incident that had occurred between Michael Jones and Kevin Jones earlier that day. He understood that there had been a run-in between the two over the suggestion Michael Jones had stolen some wine. Kevin Jones was said to have got the better of Michael Jones in the course of that incident. 4. On the afternoon of 29 April the prisoner was drinking with Kevin Jones and the man Jack at a spot frequented by alcoholics behind the Beaurepaires shop in Wagga. Michael Jones approach the group. A fight broke out between Kevin Jones and Michael Jones. During the course of that fight Kevin Jones punched and kicked Michael Jones. The prisoner joined in this fight and himself kicked Jones on one occasion. Thereafter he assisted Kevin Jones to drag Michael Jones over to an industrial waste bin. He helped Kevin Jones to place Michael Jones inside that bin. It appears that subsequently methylated spirits was poured over Michael Jones and he was set alight. He died on 29 April 2000 as the result of a combination of injuries to his head and chest, smoke inhalation, and alcohol toxicity. The prisoner is not being sentenced in respect of the unlawful killing of Michael Jones. 5. The prisoner and Kevin Jones were spoken to by police on the evening of 29 April 2000. They were arrested and both were charged with the murder of Michael Jones. While the prisoner was being held in custody he was approached by Detective Sergeant Jones, who asked if he wished to participate in an identification parade. He responded by telling Detective Sergeant Jones that there was something he wished to talk to him about. Thereafter he participated in an electronically recorded interview. In the course of that interview he gave an account of the assault upon Michael Jones by Kevin Jones, including the fact that Michael Jones had been placed inside an industrial waste bin, and that he had assisted Kevin Jones in that task. He did not admit to kicking Michael Jones himself. He went on to give an account of the aftermath, nominating Kevin Jones as being responsible for setting fire to the deceased. 6. The prisoner was jointly arraigned with Kevin Jones on Monday, 12 November 2001. The counts charged against him in that indictment were framed in the same terms as the indictment presented against him on 14 November. He entered pleas of not guilty to both counts. This was against a background that the Crown had indicated that it was not willing to accept a plea to the lesser charge in discharge of the indictment. 7. Upon the application of Kevin Jones' counsel I directed that Kevin Jones be tried separately from the prisoner. A jury was empanelled on Wednesday, 14 November 2001, to try Kevin Jones. Shortly thereafter the prisoner was rearraigned on a fresh indictment and entered the pleas to which I have referred. He has given an undertaking to give evidence in conformity with his electronically recorded interview, and with subsequent statements, provided to the police, at the trial of Kevin Jones. 8. In sentencing the prisoner I propose to take into account his assistance to the authorities in the investigation of the assault upon, and subsequent murder of, Michael Jones. I also propose taking into account the prisoner's undertaking to give evidence on behalf of the Crown at the trial of Kevin Jones. I consider it appropriate to discount the sentence that I would otherwise impose to reflect these considerations; s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Procedure Act 1999 (NSW). I also take into account the prisoner's plea of guilty. This was entered at the first opportunity. I propose to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty by means of a discount of 15 per cent. This discount reflects, among other things, my view that the trial of the prisoner would neither have been complex or lengthy. 9. I propose to allow an additional discount to reflect the prisoner's assistance to the authorities, including his undertaking to give evidence at the trial of Kevin Jones. In the light of the provisions of s 5DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 I consider that I should separately identify this discount. In so doing I take into account that the evidence which it is anticipated the prisoner will give is of considerable significance to the Crown case against Kevin Jones. I also take into account the evidence that the prisoner has been assaulted while in custody, apparently as the result of his assistance to the authorities in connection with this matter, and that he has served and will continue to serve his sentence in conditions of protection. 10. I propose allowing a further discount on sentence in the amount of 20 per cent to take account of these matters.